And I'm not going to blame Monroe for that, because it was a dumb decision to throw the ball with just those few seconds left in the half, given how inept the Ravens' offense had been for the preceding thirty minutes.

Bad play call and decision or not, you have to execute what's called and he didn't on that play. Can't just absolve him of it.

He said he's not going to blame him for that, not that it wasn't a bad play. You pick out only the part that suits your agenda. As clearly he also said this...

Mancunian Raven wrote:

That was about his only mistake in the game. Compare that to Big Mac trying to get Joe killed every week, and Monroe was like the second coming of Jonathan Ogden out there.

Mancunian Raven wrote:

Well, Monroe already looks like a good trade for the Ravens. Played well today, despite only being with the team for a week. Kept Joe's blindside clean, for the most part, and looked infinitely better than Big Mac.

A couple of communications issues that will be ironed out, and unfortunately he can't do much about the sieve that we call Gino Gradkowski.

Hope the Ravens work out an extension with him.

Clearly you're response acts as if he's been blindly believing Monroe had some sort of perfect game or something. He admitted Monroe made a mistake on that particular play and that he had some issues in the game...

Yet you simply latch onto that ONE particular line out of all his response without even ATTEMPTING to utilize context.

Monroe had a good game and made a mistake during a play that never should've been called in the first place... the point is, the blame for that play falls on the coaches much more than it should fall on Monroe or Flacco... as they never should've been put in that position in the first place. Clearly 12 seconds was not enough time to march down the field for 50 yards or so for a FG attempt. And THAT'S the point Manc was making there. He clearly isn't absolving Monroe of blame more than absolving him of MOST of the blame. The media is just latching onto that one play to try and make it seem as if Monroe had some sort of horrible game, when clearly that isn't an accurate account. As opposed to the media questioning the right party, blaming the most guilty party.

Also, on that play, Monroe still provided Flacco with plenty of time for a normal play. The issue with that play is that because the coaches had the offense out there trying to get 50 yards in 12 seconds, Flacco had to take a deep shot... meaning he needed to use a longer windup and needed an incredible amount of time for the play to develop. Monroe gave pretty good protection there if we aren't taking a deep shot as Flacco doesn't need to use that longer windup and expose the ball to the defender.

Jeremiah makes it seem as if Monroe was a turnstyle there. He wasn't. That was solid protection, just not solid protection considering the improbable circumstance of completing a 40+ yard play against a defense clearly playing prevent._________________

And I'm not going to blame Monroe for that, because it was a dumb decision to throw the ball with just those few seconds left in the half, given how inept the Ravens' offense had been for the preceding thirty minutes.

Bad play call and decision or not, you have to execute what's called and he didn't on that play. Can't just absolve him of it.

He said he's not going to blame him for that, not that it wasn't a bad play. You pick out only the part that suits your agenda. As clearly he also said this...

Mancunian Raven wrote:

That was about his only mistake in the game. Compare that to Big Mac trying to get Joe killed every week, and Monroe was like the second coming of Jonathan Ogden out there.

Mancunian Raven wrote:

Well, Monroe already looks like a good trade for the Ravens. Played well today, despite only being with the team for a week. Kept Joe's blindside clean, for the most part, and looked infinitely better than Big Mac.

A couple of communications issues that will be ironed out, and unfortunately he can't do much about the sieve that we call Gino Gradkowski.

Hope the Ravens work out an extension with him.

Clearly you're response acts as if he's been blindly believing Monroe had some sort of perfect game or something. He admitted Monroe made a mistake on that particular play and that he had some issues in the game...

Yet you simply latch onto that ONE particular line out of all his response without even ATTEMPTING to utilize context.

Monroe had a good game and made a mistake during a play that never should've been called in the first place... the point is, the blame for that play falls on the coaches much more than it should fall on Monroe or Flacco... as they never should've been put in that position in the first place. Clearly 12 seconds was not enough time to march down the field for 50 yards or so for a FG attempt. And THAT'S the point Manc was making there. He clearly isn't absolving Monroe of blame more than absolving him of MOST of the blame. The media is just latching onto that one play to try and make it seem as if Monroe had some sort of horrible game, when clearly that isn't an accurate account. As opposed to the media questioning the right party, blaming the most guilty party.

Also, on that play, Monroe still provided Flacco with plenty of time for a normal play. The issue with that play is that because the coaches had the offense out there trying to get 50 yards in 12 seconds, Flacco had to take a deep shot... meaning he needed to use a longer windup and needed an incredible amount of time for the play to develop. Monroe gave pretty good protection there if we aren't taking a deep shot as Flacco doesn't need to use that longer windup and expose the ball to the defender.

Jeremiah makes it seem as if Monroe was a turnstyle there. He wasn't. That was solid protection, just not solid protection considering the improbable circumstance of completing a 40+ yard play against a defense clearly playing prevent.

My agenda? Lol calm down friend. I have no agenda here. He said he wasn't going to blame him for that blame and all I said was you can't absolve Monroe of that play because it was a bad decision by the coaches to try and pass the ball. Simple as that. No agenda. Not like I said Monroe was terrible because that one play. Just was commenting on that one play. Monroe may have very well had a great game besides that play.

I am curious though why you jumped to some conclusion that I had an agenda... That play was on Monroe. Should the play have been called? No but it was and he failed on it. If that was the only play he failed on, then he still had a good debut._________________
El ramster on the custom sig!

My agenda? Lol calm down friend. I have no agenda here. He said he wasn't going to blame him for that blame and all I said was you can't absolve Monroe of that play because it was a bad decision by the coaches to try and pass the ball. Simple as that. No agenda. Not like I said Monroe was terrible because that one play. Just was commenting on that one play. Monroe may have very well had a great game besides that play.

I am curious though why you jumped to some conclusion that I had an agenda... That play was on Monroe. Should the play have been called? No but it was and he failed on it. If that was the only play he failed on, then he still had a good debut.

I figured "agenda" would come across as too strong/somewhat diabolical a word, but I honestly was too lazy to try and think of a more appropriate word to use after the loss. More like, you refused to use proper context when reading into what he was saying, just so you could one-up his response by point out his "flawed" reasoning. Which in fact, was only a flaw because you refused to actually read what he wrote- in context.

It was quite clear what he meant in his post. You used that one line of his post to try and devalue his post into a black and white representation of how he viewed Monroe's performance. He had already mentioned that play as having been a mistake and a bad play. So what exactly was the point of your response? If not simply to point out something that he had already made clear and "one up" him.

Yet you attempt to one up his response by saying everything he had already said, just in another way. It's actually quite simple. If he mentions Monroe was at fault, yet also says, he's not going to blame him... would that not mean that it's the same thing as him saying, "I'll give him a pass for that play?" And why shouldn't Monroe be give a pass for a play where he provided the necessary amount of time for a normal pass play to be executed, about 3.5 seconds, yet because of the horrid decision, it exposed him and Flacco to mistakes that weren't characteristic of their night. Just like it makes sense to give Flacco a pass for his lack of ball security on that play as he was attempting to launch the ball deep, Monroe letting in pressure, is far from taxing if the playcall isn't asking him to block for 4+ seconds because we're no where near a FG and we're going for a 30+ yard bomb (and likely incompletion) to have a shot at points.

So, is Monroe absolved of blame? No, he's not. But is he the primary entity for the blame? No. That play never should've happened... and the result perfectly illustrated why it shouldn't have. There was simply much more risk than there was reward. So no, the play wasn't on Monroe, it was on the playcaller.

Because you can't blame Monroe for that play's result anymore than you can blame Flacco not "feeling the pressure" and not exposing the football._________________